The prevalence of a spirit of contention amongst a people is a certain sign of deadness with respect to the things of religion. When men's spirits are hot with contention, they are cold to religion. - Jonathan Edwards “The Book of Mormon does not supplant the Bible. It expands, extends, clarifies, and amplifies our knowledge of the Savior. Surely, this second witness should be cause for great rejoicing by all Christians.” - Joseph B. Wirthlin

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Correcting an error

In Canada recently, President Nelson made this comment about the name of the Church:

“We’re correcting an error that has crept in over the ages.”

When I read that I thought, "Wouldn't it be awesome to correct another error that has crept in? The error being the repudiation by the M2C intellectuals of the prophets' consistent and persistent teaching that the Hill Cumorah is in New York."

We'll see.

There's still time for the M2C intellectuals to correct the error, but they don't seem to be inclined to do so.

Monday, August 20, 2018

In our hearts first

In my passport I noticed this quotation from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America.

I'd like to paraphrase that for the Church.

Whatever Latter-day Saints hope to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of the Latter-day Saints. 

This applies to every aspect of establishing Zion. Because this blog focuses on the Book of Mormon, I'll narrow the quotation even more: If we expect the world to accept the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, we Latter-day Saints better accept its divine authenticity first. 

Because I think we have to accept the prophets to establish the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, this means we as Latter-day Saints should all embrace the teachings of the prophets that Cumorah is in New York.

Also, because the M2C intellectuals repudiate the prophets regarding the New York Cumorah, I think M2C is impeding our efforts to take the Book of Mormon to the world.

Imagine if every member of the Church was aligned with the prophets on the Cumorah question. That would be one connection between the Book of Mormon and the actual New World that would unify our message to the world about the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

M2C in the Joseph Smith Papers - maps

One obstacle to consensus is lack of awareness of bias.

M2C is so pervasive that most LDS scholars don't even realize how deeply it has permeated their worldview. Like a fish that doesn't know what water is until it is caught and yanked into the atmosphere, LDS scholars take M2C for granted and never challenge their assumptions.

I've shown examples of this from the Joseph Smith Papers before, but it's been a while so it's time to look at them again, along with some new examples.

The first one is a map. You can see it here:

This is the map and explanation:

Notice the heading: "Mission to the Indians."

The headings to D&C 28, 30, and 32, which were the revelations calling these brethren on their mission, reflect the language used in the revelations.

We don't read about a mission to the Indians. Instead, we read this:

D&C 28 -  8–10, Oliver Cowdery is to preach to the Lamanites;

D&C 30 - 5–8, Peter Whitmer Jr. is to accompany Oliver Cowdery on a mission to the Lamanites

D&C 32 - 1–3, Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson are called to preach to the Lamanites and to accompany Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer Jr.

The heading to D&C 32 even says this:

Great interest and desires were felt by the elders respecting the Lamanites, of whose predicted blessings the Church had learned from the Book of Mormon. 

According to M2C, the "real" Lamanites are the Mayans, who have little genetic or anthropological connection to the tribes in the Northeastern U.S.

Yet the Lord designated the tribes in New York, Ohio and the Midwest as Lamanites. To this day, these are the only people formally designated by revelation as Lamanites.

Notice how, in the explanation of the map, the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers decided to put the scriptural language in quotations. This frames it as a folk tradition, as if to say, the so-called Lamanites. Meanwhile, the heading, in much larger print, identifies the people simply as Indians.

I realize this may seem a subtle, nit-picking complaint, but it is typical of how the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers are rewriting Church history to accommodate M2C.

Monday, August 13, 2018

M2C manipulation

There's a nice piece at Vanity Fair about how Stephen Miller is manipulating the federal government to accomplish is personal objectives. It reminded me of the way the M2C intellectuals are manipulating the Church to promote M2C by framing the issue to their advantage.

Here's a key paragraph:

Perhaps as significantly, sources say, Miller has been able to help frame the issue for Trump, both by communicating the administration’s policies to the media and by quietly suppressing information that doesn’t comport with his narrative. “He claims to be speaking for the president all while manipulating the information the president receives, so the president never hears alternative views or arguments.

The M2C intellectuals have successfully misled their students and Church employees into thinking there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon in New York or anywhere in the United States. Another passage from the article explains how Miller uses the same technique:

When the Department of Health and Human Services completed a report that found refugees had boosted government revenues by $63 billion over the past decade, for instance, Miller reportedly had the study suppressed. “The president believes refugees cost more, and the results of this study shouldn’t embarrass the president,” he reportedly instructed officials at the agency. (At the time, White House spokesperson Raj Shah dismissed the report as a leak “delivered by someone with an ideological agenda” and insisted refugees are “not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.”)

Sunday, August 12, 2018

How long halt ye between two opinions?

Today in Sunday School we discussed Elijah and the famous verse, 1 Kings 18:21. This chapter relates the way in which Elijah generated a consensus among the people of Israel regarding the truthfulness of what the prophet Elijah taught.

The verse reads:

"And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word."

Isaiah and the priests of Baal
That led to the famous showdown between Elijah and the priests of Baal.

One of the most fascinating elements of this passage is that the people had no answer. They didn't know whom to follow.

Why were they so confused?

On the one hand, they had the prophet of God.

But on the other hand, they had the popular leaders, the priests of Baal who purported to speak for God, who taught the people that the prophets were wrong, just as the M2C scholars are doing today.

The verse could be rephrased this way:

"And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the prophets be true, follow them: but if the M2C scholars [be true], then follow them. And the people answered him not a word."

We each get to choose.

We each must choose.

[Note: the M2C intellectuals will object that I'm comparing them to the priests of Baal because they're entire approach depends on obfuscation and confusion. True, I am comparing them to the priests of Baal, but only in a limited sense. That's how we always apply the scriptures to our own circumstances. Here, I'm limiting the comparison to the question of whether to follow the prophets or to repudiate the prophets. I'm not comparing M2C to all the things the priests of Baal taught and practiced, but the M2C intellectuals openly try to get members of the Church to reject what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah.]

How long will members of the Church continue to halt between the two geographical models?

It's not a difficult choice. Whichever model you choose, you can confirm your bias by interpreting the text to match your model and by considering relevant archaeology, anthropology, geology, geography, etc. that confirms your bias.

Really, the only difference is whether you agree with or disagree with the prophets.

Either Cumorah is in New York, as the prophets have consistently and persistently taught, or it's elsewhere, in which case it doesn't really matter much where it is, does it? 

If the prophets have been wrong all along, we might as well accept the fantasy maps currently being taught to LDS youth by CES and BYU. 

Inevitably and irreversibly, that will lead to the metaphorical interpretation of the Book of Mormon, which seems to be the ultimate objective of the M2C scholars anyway (although they claim otherwise).

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Self image and ideas

One of the big obstacles to reaching consensus is taking offense when someone questions, challenges, or criticizes our ideas.

Joseph Epstein has a wonderful piece in the Wall St. Journal today. Although he was writing specifically about politics, his point applies very well to religious discussions.

The subtitle of his article is "Our self-image is no so bound up in ideology that any disagreement feels like a personal attack."

Think of a missionary sharing the gospel. Many investigators will take the mere existence of a missionary from another church as a criticism of his/her own beliefs. Because our self-image is "bound up in ideology," the investigator may feel offended (or personally attacked) whenever the missionary offers a "better" religion, such as the "fullness of the gospel" which implies the investigator doesn't have the fullness. The missionary may feel personally attacked when others oppose what he/she is teaching.

Even within the Church, people conflate their ideological beliefs with their self-image. People who have strong views on issues of Church History or Book of Mormon geography often consider these views as part of their self-image and therefore become defensive when others disagree with their views.

Recognizing this would go a long way to resolving the problem.

Here are excerpts from Epstein's piece:

There’s Too Much Virtue in Politics

Our self-image is now so bound up in ideology that any disagreement feels like a personal attack.

Here is an excerpt that gets to the heart of his argument:

When politics isn’t a quest for personal gain or power, it’s a clash of virtues. Look behind a person’s political views and you will discover his idealized picture of himself. The liberal sees his virtue in speaking up for the underdog, hungering for social justice, showing a spirit of empathy. The conservative finds his virtue in advocating liberty and maximal freedom as most likely to induce achievement, prosperity, and, most important, strong character. ...
The main point is that in declaring my politics I am declaring my virtue, so when you oppose my politics you oppose my highest view of myself. This explains why political arguments so quickly get to the shouting stage. If you disagree with me about a candidate or policy, you are in effect telling me that I am (pick one) selfish, naive, insensitive, foolish. Disagree with my politics, and you offend, insult, attack me personally.

I hope everyone can recognize that our ideas are not us.

We all disagree with others about various issues. Usually people can't even agree on the relevant facts because we all engage in confirmation bias. We filter out information that doesn't confirm our biases. We actually perceive the world differently because our of these psychological filters.

But recognition is the first step to resolution. 

When it comes to matters of Church history and the Book of Mormon, everyone is on the same "team" in the sense of being a faithful member of the Church who wants to do good, live the Gospel, and share our faith in Christ.

But that doesn't make us immune from conflating our self image with our ideas.

In my view, one of the most important roles of a prophet is to break through confirmation bias. That's why, for me, it is foolish to repudiate what the prophets have taught, including what they've taught about the hill Cumorah in New York.

The sooner we reach consensus that the prophets teach the truth, the sooner we'll reach consensus about the New York Cumorah. And from there, the rest is easy.